CAA Report Sarmiento: Updates on Beadle Info Sheet. December 2-6—Distribution of BIS forms, CAA reps assigned to school departments Submission December 9-20 Evals: from CAA reps, relevance was just right, maybe implementation could have been done earlier. Sir Mico of ADAA—memos only given to Dept Chairs who were expected to disseminate to faculty, some faculty didn't receive. Recommendation—add ADAA signatory. Make earlier. Continue. If kaya online, do it. Successes—beadles more informed and recognized, another way to contact Sanggu, many firsts. Something tangible, more submissions. From constituents—bless this post, why only this semester, good feedback overall. Lucero: Reception of faculty? Sarmiento: Some shocked, questioned validity. Some were surprised. Poe: More effective in younger batches, not enough awareness in upper batches. Sangalang: Implement in summer? Mondok: Upon recommendation, why not? Logistical problem is legwork in going to departments. Regarding faculty issue, no formal way to eval from faculty side. 2

Privilege Speech Hernandez: Friend came up to me, told me he was about to lose Latin honors even if he'd been taking 30 units a semester. Public opinion—people just wanted him to resign. People asked us why we were defending him. National context—speak for people who couldn't speak for themselves. Only way to beat oppression is solidarity, justice. People question conviction of [CRUSADA] in defending Marvin. Founded on helping the marginalized. Issue targets a political minority, hits too close to comfort. Hard time for the party. Charges are false. Four cases dismissed. People still want to criticize. Political discussion online centered on Marvin, one-sided. One comment struck—wanted us to go to hell. Defending a man whom we know is innocent. Managed to insult what we have fought for. Criticize us because we are affiliated with CRUSADA. Question our affiliation but hide behind anonymity. Salamat sa mga matatapang na nagbigay ng opinyon, who read all opinions before making the opinion. As much as I'd like to be happy that we have a burgeoning political discussion, sad that it is only happening because of a scandal. Time for mourning—not just for us but everyone. Prosecution team could stretch technicalities. Party aims to do what? Faults of structure, vagueness of constitution. We are not vengeful. Don't see the necessity of putting this into an ADSA case or settling in real court. Party's efforts better pushed towards helping the marginalized. Easier for Marvin to resign. But if you are on the side of truth, you will have the upper ground. This party united will never be defeated. Catalo: It's been a hard five weeks for us since they started investigation, on us, on CRUSADA, on SOSS SB, on Marvin. Become personal. Affected Marvin to such an extent, feels on his own. He doesn't think that he's done wrong, he hasn't. Some people think they know everything. Unfair that we choose to do this, scandalize everything, choose to phrase things as such, talk and not listen. Want everyone to know he shouldn't be alone, we should all support each other. Sanggunian is a very big family, hitting home that we're not discussing it. What if it happened to someone else? You'd defend him. He wanted to do what was right for SOSS and he is being attacked for it. Everyone should realize the gravity of the situation. Lucero: What we are seeing is something a lot of you have never seen. Concentrated frustration of the student body, finding an avenue to pop. Dissect —why is there so much sympathy? Most of us are not sure of the charges. Charges given, only Marvin taking it. Weight of Sanggu, with all the frustrations of the student body, only being taken by Marvin. 3

Secondly, Marvin's issue trickles down beyond Marvin and the party, towards Sanggu, especially SOSS. Also destroying a whole SB, a quarter of the image of the Sanggunian. Not here to defend Marvin, think he has been given undeserved political harassment—not saying he's done nothing wrong, I'm not sure. These things can happen. You are in front of the public. They're watching you, building frustrations, waiting for something to pop. Be vigilant. The job is clear. Sanggu has to wake up.

Tanglawan Project Gomez: Admin initiative, we have our own response as students. Help Ateneans affected by Yolanda. Raising money to help them normalize their lives as students. Launched promos already, blast again Sunday. The goal is P120,000, we have P20,000. We're aiming to get P20 per constituent. Blast promos, get reps to help. Many still need help. Poe: End by next week—rationale? Some may want to donate beyond that. Elicaño: Came out of meeting with acting VP Vilches. Andujare: Help out. I know everyone is tired, but this is important. Elicaño: Just as a pump-up, my home org did a charity project, also opened for donations. Got P10K. People are willing to help. Sarmiento: Donor fatigue issue. So many drives, events. Especially EOs, whatever gets that P20, you know best.

CAP Discussion Lucero: CB Reps, you've been consulted, you've voted. You will set agenda today for priority amendments for constitution. Ideas on how to divide? By amendment? Cluster into structures? Set per article? Gomez: Worried—what if we say yes to one, then another is related such that if you say yes to one, you say no to another? Lucero: You can rescind. Everything between amendment and approval rests on what is agreed at CAP sessions. Lucero: How to divide? Gomez: Start with macro—structure first? Lucero: Focus on Articles 6-8, structures of SB, CB, and BCA. SJC and COMELEC will follow. Gomez: If we attempt to amend, some would agree na medyo may problema yung structure. If we start making a structure from the existing structure, limiting? Working with remnants of dysfunctional structure rather than start new? Lucero: Suggesting—wipe out structure, create new, compare? 4

Hernandez: When will we hold plebiscite? Lucero: To be determined by COMELEC. Possibly with elections, their call. Concern is call. Gomez: List of non-negotiables? General purpose of Sanggu? Tampo ko sa structure right now is that it competes with orgs. Purpose is what you build structure on. Lucero: Up to you. Incomplete, many holes yet. Spent my whole first year discussing, went nowhere. Mondok: Set objectives first, determine priorities. Coming from T55 EvSem, the problems, from there, have a guide on amendments. Lucero: Before you enter the structure, make peace with the general purpose. You can keep discussing relevance of Sanggu as much as you want, cannot promise an end. Hernandez: Standards? Like for what a good and a bad amendment is. Actually name what we want out of an amendment. Concrete examples. Ruso: Or something within the school. Andujare: Go through the clauses, particulars, then go back to the spirit, check why it's relevant. Go deeper from there. Beltejar: You have the chance to make something completely new, no baggage. Freedom to experiment. Talk about what government structure to adopt. If you do it piecemeal, you'll end up with the same structure. Ruso: Start with a new preamble? Elicaño: Agree with Ray and Robert regarding the chance to make something new, but my concern is time. Lucero: If CB thinks there is not enough time, CB can make its own time. Flashbacks, 2010, we did this in one day. We came up with a couple of major revisions, bunch if minor fixes. We want something more concrete, a real 2013 Constitution. Andujare: Do we have a study pinpointing general problems? Beltejar: There is one, from before. Lucero: Taken into account in 2012 revision. Can give you the raw text. Gomez: We have the need to make something really different. I don't want to subject something like this to lack of quality. We forget things that we postpone. Lucero: Sanggu comes with a particular history. No one knows the context in which 2005 Constitution was written. My actual proposal was the same—remove Sanggu for a year. Goal—cut the old baggage that we have no access to, the ultimate sin, we have forgotten. We have forgotten what Sanggu was made for. We can adopt from other schools, other constitutions. What we have to filter now is the context now. You can't find the perfect amendment.

Ruso: If we want to keep from forgetting, we need to compile a Sanggunian omnibus. Lucero: Yes, importance of compiling. We have to remember something concrete that can be transitioned. Before you discuss amendments, you have to understand general purpose of Sanggu now. What is the Sanggunian? The structures stand, but they stand empty. My fear is, if you can't tell me what the Sanggunian is for, what the hell have you been doing? Andujare: So agenda for tonight is to set an agenda. You can extend. But do we need to start now? Lucero: How can you set an agenda if you don't even know what you're setting for? Gomez: Get what it's going for. Andujare: Efficient use of time. This is something for which you can consult. We can all say something. Since we want to be inclusive, ask constituents. Hernandez: Agree. If we're going to set all of the agenda based on what we think, not inclusive. But are we relevant enough? Lucero: We released letters to organizations. Around 200. We got three—SJC, COMELEC, and from CRUSADA. That's your data. We have to set an agenda. Whatever agenda you set, without the right direction, where are you going to? Gomez: Suggestion—purpose, structure, details. Andujare: Not delaying, want a more inclusive. Start with purpose, then delegate the tasks. Not to postpone or evade, just want a more informed, richer discussion. And we won't finish. Remind those at T55 PlevSem, we tried to talk about this, didn't end. Hernandez: Have points of discussion, reason is so you know the goals when you discuss. Regardless of how we set the agenda, we have to talk about the whole thing. More pressing logistically is to come up with the flow. Motion to change presidership to Sec-Gen by Sec-Gen, seconded by 2 SOM CB. Motion approved unanimously. Lucero: Dilemma—on the one hand, have to set actual points. Something technical, tangible. On the other hand, there is a Consti that, while we discuss it, we have to discuss the purpose. Asking what you do—it will manifest, in the important parts of what you do. Abstract from there. If you want to empower your reps, consult, set there. Abstract, set agenda points from there. What Roque tried was to address the first question, how is Sanggu relevant? Alejo focused on tangible structures—sustainability, actual rep count, etc. Two extremes. Need to find the golden mean. Gomez: Worry—kung sabay, giving them both the same importance. Amendments can't change purpose, purpose can change amendments. Prioritize purpose. Hernandez: If we're changing structure—talk first about whether we change whole Sanggu before other agenda? Useless otherwise. Lucero: When you propose a structural amendment, structure stands, even without purpose. You have, for example, a working SB structure, even with holes. Mondok: Agree that we start with general purpose. After you have vision-mission, you go to objectives. Biased to existing. 6

Beltejar: Question—are you okay with the purpose of the Sanggunian? If not, go from there. Structure should conform with purpose. Elicaño: Purpose is vaguely written. Poe: Constitution isn't meant to be too specific. Ruso: Student constitution, changes every so often. Should have some sense of permanence. Warren: Regarding what JV said, reason that we go through this every two years? Need to be more specific than we are now. Gomez: If you ask me, the answer is "I do what needs to be done." Still vague as to specifics. Start with purpose. Hernandez: If we want to change purpose, think of where we want to go after that. To match that, look at others. What then? Lucero: Fill the holes. Hernandez: If we wanna change, easier to see what to prioritize next. If not, we won't know. I like purpose first, but if we decide not to change, where do we go next? Chronological? Lucero: Determine purposes. Mondok: Ask yourself, do something required of you. Table in my head. See if it's in the purpose right now. Warren: Know that it's important to know purpose. Concern—might take long, never move on from there. Gomez: Never gets answered. Warren: We have a lot to say. Unana: Definition of Sanggu—define the word itself. Hernandez: Start discussing the things that affect the other things. Purpose, then preamble, then structure, then things based on structure. Ruso: Consti jurisprudence. Article is the preamble. Objective interpretation, is this what we want, comes from there. Step before purpose, definition. Preamble first. Gomez: We keep asking relevance. Constitution is vague, to the point that we have to ask. Sole existence is rooted from that relevance. Don't want to be stuck in the past. Lucero: About text—when interpreted from past, it is still relevant. Hernandez: Relevant now—set agenda for the next few days. Mondok: Compare? Existing/Proposed  General Purpose  Preamble  Structure  Articles

Lucero: Systematize. Given what you want, if you want to change general purpose, start with Preamble, Definition of Sanggu, Principles, Structures (not yet powers and responsibilities of each structure, 6-10). Then go from there. Your homework is to bring the new in. Use old as a control group. I have references we can use. Everything old, use the old. When we start next week, do not formulate answers—have a list yet. Hernandez: Tension between old and new? Lucero: We don't know. Hernandez: We can't think of what happened in the past. CAP has the link to the past. If we think there is a conflict, compare. Poe: Still need to make sure that it is something that can be applied beyond our current situation. Gomez: Thought after relief ops. We are students. Why can't we ask help from others? Consult professionals? Beltejar: Don't bring in lawyers. It will take years. Lucero: Where do you think you'll get your new ideas? Cheng: Representatives from other schools? Lucero: I will present. Ruso: For interpretation of old, has it been interpreted? Lucero: No. Everything we know about that was from the document. Mondok: Inviting reps? Or do we ask them and write it down? Lucero: Discretion. Elicaño: Send me initial list by Thursday.